1.
In 1999, the United States Patent and Trademark Office
(“USPTO”) published training materials regarding the examination
of patent applications under the written description requirement of
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. (See http://www.uspto.gov/web/
offices/pac/writtendesc.pdf). Since that time, the case law and tech-
nology have developed in such a way as to necessitate a revision of
the 1999 training materials. Consequently, this revision was created
to supercede and replace the 1999 training materials. To the extent
that any conflict exists between the 1999 training materials and the
present materials, the present materials control.

4.
1
APPLYING THE WRITTEN DESCRIPTION REQUIREMENT
As discussed in the Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications under the 35
U.S.C. 112, paragraph 1, “Written Description” Requirement (attached as Appendix A - Fed.
Reg. 66(4):1103), the examination of patent claims for compliance with the Written Description
Requirement should include:
1. A determination as to what the claim as a whole covers.
In making this determination, the examiner should consider and discuss the full
scope of the claim.
2. A full review of the application to understand how the applicant provides support
for the claimed invention including each element and/or step. This review includes
comparing the claim scope with the scope of the description.
3. A determination as to whether one skilled in the art would recognize that the
applicant was in possession of the claimed invention as a whole at the time of filing.
This determination should include the following considerations:
a. Actual reduction to practice
b. Disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas
c. Sufficient relevant identifying characteristics, such as:
i. Complete structure
ii. Partial structure
iii. Physical and/or chemical properties
iv. Functional characteristics when coupled with a known or disclosed
correlation between function and structure
d. Method of making the claimed invention
e. Level of skill and knowledge in the art
f. Predictability in the art
4. For each claim drawn to a single embodiment or species, consider the above factors
in regard to that embodiment or species to determine whether one of ordinary skill
in the art would recognize that the applicant was in possession of the species or
embodiment at the time of filing.
5. For each claim drawn to a genus, consider each of the above factors to determine
whether there is disclosure of a representative number of species which would lead
one skilled in the art to conclude that the applicant was in possession of the claimed
invention. The number of species required to represent a genus will vary, depending

5.
2
on the level of skill and knowledge in the art and the variability among the claimed
genus. For instance, fewer species will be required where the skill and knowledge in
the art is high, and more species will be required where the claimed genus is highly
variable.

6.
3
EXAMPLE 1: PRIORITY, ORIGINAL AND AMENDED CLAIMS
EXAMPLE 1: PRIORITY, ORIGINAL AND
AMENDED CLAIMS
1A: 35 U.S.C. 120 BENEFIT
Specification:Specification:
The specification is directed to an artificial hip
socket that includes cup implants adapted to replace
the acetabulum (the cup-shaped socket of the hip bone). The specification discloses that the
shape of the cup is not important, so long as the implant can effectively function as an artificial
hip socket. The application is a continuation-in-part (CIP). The parent application describes an
acetabular cup prosthesis wherein the cup is a trapezoid, a truncated cone, or of conical shape.
All of these terms describe a conical-shaped cup. In contrast to the CIP specification, the parent
specification touts the criticality of a conical cup over all other shaped cups.
A reference disclosing the claimed invention was published between the filing date of
the parent application and the instant application. Applicant asserts entitlement to the filing
date of the parent application.
Claims:
Claim 1. An acetabular cup prosthesis comprising:
a body extending generally longitudinally and terminating into front and rear
surfaces,
the front surface extending substantially transversely toward the body; and
at least one fin for securing the cup to a prepared acetabulum cavity,
the fin having a length extending generally longitudinally from the front surface
continuously along the body toward the rear surface thereby engaging the body with
the cavity and securing the cup.
Claim 2. The prosthesis of claim 1, wherein the body has a generally conical outer
surface.
Analysis:Analysis:
Claim 1
Claim 1 is broadly drawn to an acetabular cup prosthesis that is generic as to shape.
(Compare claim 1 to claim 2.)
This example is based, in part, on the
fact pattern in Tronzo v. BioMet, Inc.,
156 F.3d 1154, 47 U.S.P.Q.2d 1829
(Fed. Cir. 1998).
CASE NOTE

7.
4
EXAMPLE 1: PRIORITY, ORIGINAL AND AMENDED CLAIMS
The parent application more narrowly describes acetabular cup prostheses. For ex-
ample, the parent application discloses only conical shaped cups, and discloses that a conical
shape is critical to cup function compared with other cup shapes.
For a claim in a later-filed application to be entitled to the filing date of an earlier appli-
cation, the earlier application must describe the subject matter of the claim in a way that satis-
fies the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
To do so, the disclosure of the earlier application must convey to one of ordinary skill in
the art that the inventor had possession of the later-claimed subject matter at the time the par-
ent application was filed. Here, there is nothing in the earlier-filed application to suggest that
shapes other than conical are part of the disclosure. In fact, the earlier-filed application teaches
the advantages of conical cups versus other shapes of cups. Accordingly, a person of ordinary
skill in the art would not view the applicant to have been
in possession of the generic subject matter claimed
based on the single species disclosed in the earlier-filed
application.
Conclusion:
The parent application fails to adequately
describe the full scope of the genus of claim
1. Thus, claim 1 is not entitled to the ben-
efit of the parent application filing date.
Accordingly, a rejection should be made un-
der the appropriate section(s) of 35 U.S.C.
102 over the intervening prior art.
Claim 2
Claim 2 is narrowly drawn to an acetabular cup prosthesis that has a conical outer sur-
face.
Because the parent application likewise describes acetabular cup prostheses that have
conical shapes, a person of ordinary skill in the art would view the applicant to have been in
possession of the narrow subject matter claimed based on the single species disclosed the ear-
lier-filed application.
Conclusion:
The specification satisfies the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112,
first paragraph, with respect to the full scope of claim 2.
A notation should be made in the file that claim 2 is entitled the benefit of the
parent application filing date. Claim 2 would not be rejected for anticipation.
PRACTICE NOTE
This example deals only with the
written description analysis of the
claimed prosthesis. Other issues,
such as enablement, are not addressed
here, but should be considered during
examination.

8.
5
EXAMPLE 1: PRIORITY, ORIGINAL AND AMENDED CLAIMS
1B: CRITICAL FEATURE MISSING FROM ORIGINAL, GENERIC CLAIM
The fact pattern is similar to the fact pattern of Example 1A, except that in this example
there is no continuation-in-part (CIP) application.
Specification:Specification:
The specification is directed to an artificial hip
socket that includes cup implants adapted to replace
the acetabulum (the cup-shaped socket of the hip bone).
The specification discloses that a conical-shaped cup is
critical to the prosthesis effectively functioning as an
artificial hip socket. The specification describes an ac-
etabular cup prosthesis wherein the cup is a trapezoid,
a truncated cone, or of conical shape. All of these terms
describe a conical cup. The specification also touts the
criticality of a conical-shaped cup over all other shaped
cups.
Claims:
Claim 1. An acetabular cup prosthesis comprising:
a body extending generally longitudinally and terminating into front and rear
surfaces,
the front surface extending substantially transversely toward the body; and
at least one fin for securing the cup to a prepared acetabulum cavity,
the fin having a length extending generally longitudinally from the front surface
continuously along the body toward the rear surface thereby engaging the body with
the cavity and securing the cup.
Claim 2. The prosthesis of claim 1, wherein the body has a generally conical outer
surface.
Analysis:Analysis:
Claim 1
Claim 1 is broadly drawn to an acetabular cup prosthesis that is generic as to shape.
(Compare claim 1 to claim 2.)
The specification discloses only conical shaped cups. There is no reduction to practice
or disclosure of shapes other than conical. The specification discloses that prosthesis shape
is critical to the proper functioning of the claimed invention, and that the device will not work
without the proper shape. However, the specification does not disclose what other shapes
might function as claimed. Further, no information is provided from which a person of ordi-
If applicant amended the parent by
adding claims to the subject matter of
claim 1, the amendment would have
been new matter and the amended
claims would have been rejected for
lack of written description.
PRACTICE NOTE

9.
6
EXAMPLE 1: PRIORITY, ORIGINAL AND AMENDED CLAIMS
nary skill in the art could predict which shapes would function properly, i.e., there is no known
or disclosed structure-function correlation. Because a conical shape is the only contemplated
shape of the invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not view the applicant to have
been in possession of the generic subject matter claimed based on the single species disclosed
in the specification.
Conclusion:
The specification fails to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C.
112, first paragraph, with respect to the full scope of claim 1.
Claim 2
Claim 2 is narrowly drawn to an acetabular cup prosthesis that has a conical outer sur-
face. Because the specification likewise discloses acetabular cup prostheses that have only
conical shapes, a person of ordinary skill in the art would view the applicant to have been in
possession of the narrow subject matter claimed based on the specification.
Conclusion:
The specification satisfies the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112,
first paragraph, with respect to the full scope of claim 2.
1C: A PREFERRED FEATURE MISSING FROM ORIGINAL CLAIM
The fact pattern is similar to the fact pattern of Example 1B, except that in this example
the shape of the conical cup is disclosed as being preferred.
Specification:Specification:
The specification is directed to an artificial hip socket that includes cup implants adapt-
ed to replace the acetabulum (the cup-shaped socket of the hip bone). The specification dis-
closes that the shape of the cup must allow the prosthesis to effectively function as an artificial
hip socket, but does not define which shapes will or will not effectively function. The applica-
tion describes and has figures of an acetabular cup prosthesis wherein the shape of the cup is
trapezoid, a truncated cone, or of conical shape. All of these terms describe a conical cup. The
specification emphasizes that a conical cup is preferred over all other shaped cups.

10.
7
EXAMPLE 1: PRIORITY, ORIGINAL AND AMENDED CLAIMS
Claims:
Claim 1. An acetabular cup prosthesis comprising:
a body extending generally longitudinally and terminating into front and rear
surfaces,
the front surface extending substantially transversely toward the body; and
at least one fin for securing the cup to a prepared acetabulum cavity,
the fin having a length extending generally longitudinally from the front surface
continuously along the body toward the rear surface thereby engaging the body with
the cavity and securing the cup.
Claim 2. The prosthesis of claim 1, wherein the body has a generally conical outer
surface.
Analysis:Analysis:
Claim 1
Claim 1 is broadly drawn to an acetabular cup prosthesis that is generic as to shape.
(Compare claim 1 to claim 2.)
The specification does not show the reduction to practice of any acetabular cup prosthe-
ses. The specification includes drawings of only acetabular cup prostheses that have conical
shapes. The specification does not disclose what shapes other than conical might function as
claimed. Although the application states that conical shaped cups are preferred, the specifica-
tion does not indicate that a conical shape is critical to cup function compared with other cup
shapes. Thus, the shape of the cup is not a critical feature. Accordingly, a person of ordinary
skill in the art would view the applicant to have been in possession of the generic subject mat-
ter claimed based on the single species disclosed in the specification because the invention as
claimed will function in its intended manner even without the specific disclosed conical shape.
Conclusion:
The specification satisfies the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112,
first paragraph, with respect to the full scope of claim 1.
Claim 2
Claim 2 is narrowly drawn to an acetabular cup prosthesis that has a conical outer sur-
face.
Because the specification describes acetabular cup prostheses that have conical shapes
as a preferred embodiment, a person of ordinary skill in the art would view the applicant to
have been in possession of the narrow subject matter claimed based on in the specification.

12.
9
EXAMPLE 2: AMENDED CLAIM
EXAMPLE 2: AMENDED CLAIM
Specification:Specification:
The specification is directed to a unit of a sec-
tional sofa with a console between two reclining chairs,
wherein the control means for the reclining chairs are
mounted on the console. The specification clearly identi-
fies the console as the only possible location for the controls, and provides for only the most
minor variation in the location of the controls; i.e., the controls may be mounted on the top,
front, or side surfaces of the console. Additionally, the specification states that the purpose of
the console is to house the controls. The original claims required the controls to be on the con-
sole. The applicant subsequently amends the claims to remove this limitation.
Claim:
Claim 1. (Amended) A sectional sofa comprising:
a pair of reclining seats disposed in parallel relationship with one another in a
double reclining seat sofa section,
each of said reclining seats having a backrest and seat cushions and being
movable between upright and reclined positions,
a fixed console disposed in the double reclining seat sofa section between the
pair of reclining seats, and
a pair of control means mounted on the double reclining seat sofa section to
enable each of the pair of reclining seats to move separately between the reclined
and upright positions.
Analysis:Analysis:
The facts indicate that the claim has been amended. Therefore, the examiner should
follow Appendix B: “Decision Tree: Where No Benefit Claimed” in these training materials.
Following that decision tree, the examiner should first compare the scope of the amended claim
to the scope of the original claim(s) and the disclosure in the specification.
Here, the amended claim is directed to a sectional sofa comprising, inter alia, a pair of
control means mounted anywhere on the double reclining seat sofa sectional unit. The origi-
nal claim required that the pair of control means was located on the center console. Thus, the
amended claim is broader than the original claim, because it is missing an element (limitation)
that was recited in the original claim.
The decision tree directs the examiner to consider next whether the missing element is
described in the specification as being a critical feature of the invention. Here, the specification
This example is based on the fact
pattern in Gentry Gallery, Inc. v.
Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473, 45
U.S.P.Q.2d 1498 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
CASE NOTE

13.
10
EXAMPLE 2: AMENDED CLAIM
makes clear that the disclosed invention is a unit of a sectional sofa comprising control means
located on a console that separates the seats in the double reclining seat sofa section. The dis-
closure provides no description or support for controls located anywhere other than on the con-
sole. The disclosure unambiguously limits the location of the controls to the console. Thus,
the claim is broader than the description of the invention in the specification.
Because the specification supports only a narrow understanding of the location of
the controls, the specification does not support a broader claim that omits this limitation.
Accordingly, the specification does not adequately describe the genus recited in claim 1.
Conclusion:
The specification fails to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C.
112, first paragraph, with respect to claim 1.

14.
11
EXAMPLE 3: FLOW DIAGRAMS
EXAMPLE 3: FLOW DIAGRAMS
Specification:Specification:
The specification is directed to a mechanism for controlling the mode of operation of a
modem. A modem is used for modulating and demodulating signals, both analog and digital,
over telephone lines. It has two modes: (1) a transparent mode, in which the modem performs
the modulation-demodulation function, and (2) a command mode, in which the modem re-
sponds to predetermined commands and performs operations by executing a set of instructions
stored in Read-Only-Memory (ROM) or firmware. An escape command tells the modem when to
switch between transparent and command modes.
The application claims an improved mechanism for detecting an escape command by a
modem. The decision making capability and timing means preferably reside in a microproces-
sor, preferably a Z-8 type microprocessor. The specification discloses logic flow diagrams and
provides a detailed functional recitation that describes how to program computers to detect
an escape command, but the specification does not provide a computer program listing with
source code. The specification describes the escape sequence as one full second of no data,
followed by the predetermined escape command, followed by another full second of no data.
Claim:
Claim 1. In a modem including data input port for connecting said modem to a
utilization device, and a telephone port for connecting said modem to a telephone line,
said modem being of the type having two distinct modes of operation;
a transparent mode of operation for which said modem provides modulated
signals to said telephone port in response to data signals provided to said data input
port; and
a command mode of operation for which said modem responds to said data
signals provided to said data input port as instructions to said modem;
said modem including means defining a predetermined sequence of said data
signals as an escape character, the improvement comprising:
timing means for detecting each occurrence of a passage of a predetermined
period of time after provision of one of said data signals to said data input port; and
means, operative when said modem is in said transparent mode of operation,
for detecting provision of said predetermined sequence of said data signals, and for
causing said modem to switch to said command mode of operation, if and only if
said predetermined sequence of data signals occurs contiguous in time with at least

15.
12
EXAMPLE 3: FLOW DIAGRAMS
one said occurrence of said passage of said predetermined period of time during
which none of said data signals are provided to said data input port.
Analysis:Analysis:
Claim 1
Claim 1 is drawn to a genus of modems having two modes of operation (transparent
and command), a timing means, and a means for detecting an escape sequence and causing the
modem to switch from the transparent to the command mode.
The specification does not describe a reduction to practice of modems having two
modes of operation (transparent and command) with any particular timing means or means for
detecting the escape command and switching to the command mode.
The specification provides drawings of the modems as claimed in the form of detailed
functional flow diagrams. However, aside from the detailed drawings, the specification does
not disclose the complete or partial structures of a modem, nor the physical properties of tim-
ing means or means for detecting the escape command and switching to the command mode.
The specification does not disclose a method for making the claimed modems.
Nonetheless, a search of the prior art indicates that the hardware required to con-
struct the claimed modems is conventional, and that one skilled in the art would know how to
program a microprocessor to perform the necessary steps described in the specification and
detailed drawings. A review of the prior art also indicates that there would be no substantial
variation expected among the species of modem within the claimed genus.
Because the claimed invention is supported by conventional hardware structure and be-
cause there is a detailed description, including drawings, of what the software does to operate
the computer, there is sufficient description of the claimed invention. Disclosing a micropro-
cessor capable of performing certain functions is sufficient to satisfy the written description
requirement, when one skilled in the relevant art would understand what is being described and
recognize that the applicant was in posession of the invention claimed.
Conclusion:
The specification satisfies the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112,
first paragraph, with respect to claim 1.

16.
13
EXAMPLE 4: EXPRESSION SEQUENCE TAGS
EXAMPLE 4: EXPRESSED SEQUENCE TAGS (ESTS)
4A: EFFECT OF OPEN TRANSITIONAL LANGUAGE
Specification:Specification:
The specification discloses SEQ ID NO: 16, which is an EST, i.e., a cDNA that corresponds
to only part of a protein-encoding open reading frame (ORF). The specification does not ad-
dress whether the cDNA crosses an exon/intron splice junction. The specification provides a
working example in which the cDNA of SEQ ID NO: 16 was isolated from a yeast cDNA library
and sequenced. The specification discloses that SEQ ID NO: 16 will hybridize to its complement
in yeast genomic DNA and that the cDNA is useful for identifying yeast infections.
Claim:
Claim 1. An isolated DNA comprising SEQ ID NO: 16.
Analysis:Analysis:
Claim 1
Claim 1 is directed to the genus of DNAs comprising the cDNA sequence described
in the specification as SEQ ID NO: 16; the claimed DNAs may also include additional DNA se-
quences attached to either end of the sequence shown in SEQ ID NO: 16. The claimed genus
therefore includes the full-length open reading frame (ORF) that includes SEQ ID NO: 16, as well
as fusion constructs and vectors comprising SEQ ID NO: 16. (The genus might include the full-
length genomic gene. More specifically, if SEQ ID NO: 16 is derived from a single exon, the ge-
nomic sequence would comprise SEQ ID NO: 16; if SEQ ID NO: 16 is derived from more than one
exon, the genomic sequence would not comprise SEQ ID NO: 16.)
There may be substantial variability among the species of DNAs encompassed by the
scope of the claim because SEQ ID NO: 16 may be combined with other DNA sequences, how-
PRACTICE NOTE
ESTs are recognized in the art as small pieces of DNA sequence (usually 200 to 500 nucleotides long) that
are generated by sequencing either one or both ends of an expressed gene. The idea is to sequence bits of DNA
that represent genes expressed in certain cells, tissues, or organs. These “tags” are used to “fish out” a gene
from a portion of chromosomal DNA by matching base pairs. See, e.g., www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/About/primer/
est.html, “Just the Facts: A Basic Introduction to the Science Underlying NCBI Resources, ESTs: GENE
DISCOVERY MADE EASIER.”

17.
14
EXAMPLE 4: EXPRESSION SEQUENCE TAGS
ever the scope of the genus is defined by the presence of the structure shown in SEQ ID NO: 16.
Thus, all members of the genus will predictably include SEQ ID NO: 16.
The specification provides an actual reduction to practice and the complete struc-
ture of one species within the genus; i.e., the cDNA consisting of the sequence shown in
SEQ ID NO: 16. SEQ ID NO: 16 also represents a partial structure of each DNA encompassed by
the claimed genus: each member of the claimed genus must include SEQ ID NO: 16 as part of
its structure because the presence of SEQ ID NO: 16 defines the scope of the claimed genus. It
is within the level of skill and knowledge to add any de-
sired DNA sequence to either end of SEQ ID NO: 16 with
no more than routine experimentation.
Because SEQ ID NO: 16 is a structural feature
common to all members of the genus and the specifi-
cation describes the complete structure (sequence) of
SEQ ID NO: 16, one skilled in the art would recognize
that the applicant was in possession of a common struc-
tural feature of members of the genus. The species
shown in the specification; i.e., SEQ ID NO: 16, is there-
fore representative of the species within the claimed ge-
nus.
Conclusion:
The specification satisfies the written de-
scription requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112, first
paragraph, with respect to the claimed DNAs.
4B: EFFECT OF CLOSED TRANSITIONAL LANGUAGE
Specification:Specification:
The specification discloses a working example in which ESTs were isolated from certain
metastatic cancers. Example 1 describes a process for isolating and quantifying three ESTs
from bladder and kidney tumors, as well as from normal healthy bladder and kidney tissue.
The ESTs are named BKC1, BKC2, and BKC3, and their nucleic acid sequences are disclosed as
SEQ ID NOS: 1-3, respectively. The sequences are each 300 nucleotides in length.
Example 2 provides data from over 300 patients showing that these three ESTs are
found in 10- to 50-fold higher concentrations on average in the tumors of adults having bladder
and kidney cancer compared with the corresponding tissues in normal healthy adults. The data
also indicate that tumors having 30-fold and higher concentrations of BKC2 are three times less
likely to respond to chemotherapies using cisplatin. Prophetic examples are also provided for
This example deals only with the writ-
ten description analysis of the claimed
product. Claims to ESTs often raise
other issues, particularly whether the
application discloses a patentable util-
ity for the claimed EST(s), whether
the claims are enabled throughout
their scope, and whether the claims
are so broad that they read on prod-
ucts disclosed in the prior art. These
other issues are not addressed here,
but should be considered during ex-
amination. Other rejections should
be made when appropriate.
PRACTICE NOTE

18.
15
EXAMPLE 4: EXPRESSION SEQUENCE TAGS
making a library of cDNAs encoding full length proteins using random primers in combination
with primers based on the nucleic acid sequences of the three disclosed ESTs.
Claims:
Claim 1. An isolated nucleic acid comprising SEQ ID NO: 1.
Claim 2. An isolated nucleic acid consisting of SEQ ID NO: 1.
Analysis:Analysis:
Claim 2
Because claim 2 uses the “closed” transitional term “consiting of” it encompasses a
single species of isolated nucleic acid, i.e., BKC1. The specification discloses the complete
structure of BKC1, i.e., SEQ ID NO: 1. The specification also describes a method of isolating
BKC1 from bladder and kidney cells. Because the specification discloses the complete structure
of the claimed species, as well as a method of making it, those of ordinary skill in the EST art
would recognize the inventor to have been in possession of the claimed nucleic acid at the time
of filing.
Conclusion:
The specification satisfies the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112,
first paragraph, with respect to the full scope of claim 2.
Claim 1
Claim 1 encompasses a genus of isolated nucleic acids each having as part of its struc-
ture SEQ ID NO: 1. Because the claim uses the open transitional phrase “comprising,” the
claimed nucleic acids may also include additional DNA sequences at either end of the sequence
shown in SEQ ID NO: 1. The genus, therefore, includes the full-length open reading frame that
includes SEQ ID NO: 1, as well as fusion constructs and vectors comprising SEQ ID NO: 1. (The
genus might include the full-length genomic gene. More specifically, if SEQ ID NO: 1 is derived
from a single exon, the genomic sequence would comprise SEQ ID NO: 1; if SEQ ID NO: 1 is de-
rived from more than one exon, the genomic sequence would not comprise SEQ ID NO: 1.)
There may be substantial variability among the species of DNAs encompassed by the
scope of the claim because SEQ ID NO: 1 may be combined with other DNA sequences, but the
scope of the genus is defined by the presence of the structure shown in SEQ ID NO: 1. Thus, all
members of the genus will predictably include SEQ ID NO: 1.
The specification provides an actual reduction to practice and disclosure of one spe-
cies within the genus; i.e., the cDNA consisting of the sequence shown in SEQ ID NO: 1. That
sequence also represents a partial structure of each DNA encompassed by the claimed genus:
each member of the claimed genus must include SEQ ID NO: 1 as part of its structure because
the presence of SEQ ID NO: 1 defines the scope of the claimed genus.

19.
16
EXAMPLE 4: EXPRESSION SEQUENCE TAGS
It is within the level of skill and knowledge in the
art to add any desired DNA sequence to either end of
SEQ ID NO: 1 with no more than routine experimenta-
tion. Because SEQ ID NO: 1 is a structural feature com-
mon to members of the claimed genus and the specifi-
cation describes the complete structure (sequence) of
SEQ ID NO: 1, one skilled in the art would recognize that
the applicant was in possession of a structural feature
shared by members of the claimed genus. The species
shown in the specification; i.e., SEQ ID NO: 1, is, there-
fore, representative of the species within the claimed
genus.
Conclusion:
The specification satisfies the written de-
scription requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112, first
paragraph, with respect to the full scope of
claim 1.
This example deals only with the writ-
ten description analysis of the claimed
product. Claims to ESTs often raise
other issues, particularly whether the
application discloses a patentable util-
ity for the claimed EST(s), whether
the claims are enabled throughout
their scope, and whether the claims
are so broad that they read on prod-
ucts disclosed in the prior art. These
other issues are not addressed here but
should be considered during examina-
tion. Other rejections should be made
when appropriate.
PRACTICE NOTE

20.
17
EXAMPLE 5: PARTIAL PROTEIN STRUCTURE
EXAMPLE 5: PARTIAL PROTEIN STRUCTURE
Specification:Specification:
The specification discloses a working example
in which Protein A was isolated from human urine.
Protein A is a 22 kDa protein that binds to and activates
Protein X. Example 1 describes a process for isolat-
ing Protein A from human urine. The process includes dialyzing human urine to form a crude
protein concentrate, loading the protein concentrate onto an affinity column of immobilized
Protein X, and eluting Protein A from the column as a single peak in a fraction corresponding
to about 31% acetonitrile using reversed-phase high pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC),
wherein the purity of Protein A is confirmed by SDS-PAGE under reducing conditions. The ex-
ample provides data showing that Protein A so isolated binds to and activates Protein X. The
specification also discloses a 10 amino acid sequence from the N-terminus of Protein A (identi-
fied as SEQ ID NO: 1).
Prophetic examples are also provided for making a library of cDNAs encoding Protein A
using random primers in combination with primers based on nucleic acid sequences predicted
from the disclosed 10 amino acid sequence of the N-terminus of Protein A.
Claims:
Claim 1. An isolated protein comprising Protein A,
wherein said Protein A includes the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1 in the
N-terminal portion of the protein, and has the same ability to bind to and activate
Protein X as Protein A from human urine, and
wherein said Protein A is purified by subjecting a crude protein recovered from
a dialyzed concentrate of human urine to affinity chromatography on a column of
immobilized Protein X, and elutes from a reversed-phase HPLC column as a single
peak in a fraction corresponding to about 31% acetonitrile and shows a molecular
weight of about 22 kDa when measured by SDS-PAGE under reducing conditions.
Claim 2. An isolated DNA comprising a DNA that encodes Protein A,
wherein said Protein A includes the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1 in the
N-terminal portion of the protein, and has the same ability to bind to and activate
Protein X as Protein A from human urine, and
wherein said Protein A is purified by subjecting a crude protein recovered from
a dialyzed concentrate of human urine to affinity chromatography on a column of
This example is based on the fact
pattern in In re Wallach, 378 F.3d
1330, 71 U.S.P.Q.2d 1939 (Fed. Cir.
2004).
CASE NOTE

21.
18
EXAMPLE 5: PARTIAL PROTEIN STRUCTURE
immobilized Protein X, and elutes from a reversed-phase HPLC column as a single
peak in a fraction corresponding to about 31% acetonitrile and shows a molecular
weight of about 22 kDa when measured by SDS-PAGE under reducing conditions.
Analysis:Analysis:
Claim 1
Claim 1 encompasses proteins having an N-terminal amino acid sequence of
SEQ ID NO: 1, and the same ability to bind to and activate Protein X as Protein A from human
urine. The claim is generic because it recites the “open” transitional term “comprising.” The
specification fails to disclose the complete structure of Protein A. The specification also fails
to disclose any art-recognized correlation between the structure of the claimed protein and
its function of binding and activating Protein X. However, the specification discloses a partial
structure of Protein A (i.e., the 10 amino acid N-terminal sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1), and other
relevant identifying characteristics of the protein (e.g., its ability to bind and activate Protein X,
its approximate molecular weight, and the concentration of acetonitrile at which Protein A will
elute from a reverse phase HPLC column). The specification also discloses a method for isolat-
ing Protein A from human urine, and a working example in which Protein A is successfully iso-
lated using the disclosed method. Thus, those of ordinary skill in the art of isolating proteins
would recognize the inventor to have been in possession of the claimed protein at the time of
filing based on these identifying characteristics and the disclosed isolation method.
Conclusion:
The specification satisfies the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112,
first paragraph, with respect to the full scope
of claim 1.
Claim 2
Claim 2 encompasses DNAs encoding
Protein A that have an N-terminal amino acid sequence
of SEQ ID NO: 1, and the same ability to bind to and
activate Protein X as Protein A isolated from human
urine. The claim is generic because it recites the “open”
transitional term “comprising.” The specification fails
to disclose the complete structure of any DNA encod-
ing Protein A, or the complete structure of Protein A,
from which the structures of the claimed DNAs might
be predicted based on knowledge in the art of the genetic code. The specification also fails
to disclose any art-recognized correlation between structure and the disclosed function of the
claimed DNAs (i.e., encoding Protein A) and/or the disclosed function of Protein A (i.e., binding
Because the average amino acid
weighs ~110 Da, a 22 kDa protein
(like Protein A) can be predicted to
be about 200 amino acids in length.
Because three nucleotides are needed
to code for one amino acid, a cDNA
encoding Protein A would be about
600 nucleotides in length.
TECHNICAL NOTE

22.
19
EXAMPLE 5: PARTIAL PROTEIN STRUCTURE
and activating Protein X). The specification does not disclose the isolation or cloning of any
DNA that encodes Protein A and/or refer to any deposited DNA capable of coding for Protein
A. Although the specification discloses relevant identifying characteristics of Protein A (e.g., its
ability to bind and activate Protein X, its approximate molecular weight, and the concentration
of acetonitrile at which Protein A will elute from a reverse phase HPLC column), only Protein A’s
molecular weight provides any information about the claimed DNAs (i.e., a rough approximation
of the size of a cDNA encoding Protein A).
However, the size of a DNA alone will not distinguish it from other DNAs. Thus, the
specification fails to disclose sufficient relevant identifying characteristics of the claimed DNAs.
The specification discloses 10 amino acids of Protein A’s approximately 200 total amino
acids, and a prophetic example for making a library of DNAs encoding Protein A using random
primers and primers based on this amino acid sequence. Using the genetic code, those of
ordinary skill in the art could predict all of the nucleic acid sequences able to encode the dis-
closed 10 amino acids of SEQ ID NO: 1. Thus, those of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
the inventor to have been in possession of 5% of the structure of the claimed DNAs. However,
the specification fails to disclose any information about the structure of the remaining 95% of
the claimed DNAs. Although the prophetic example showing how to isolate the claimed DNAs
might eventually lead to an actual reduction to practice, because of unpredictability in the art,
those of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the inventor to have been in possession of
even one species of the claimed DNAs at the time of filing.
Because the specification fails to support even one species of DNA in the claimed genus,
it is apparent that a representative number of species is not disclosed.
Conclusion:
The specification fails to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C.
112, first paragraph, with respect to the full scope of claim 2.

24.
21
EXAMPLE 6: DNA HYBRIDIZATION
EXAMPLE 6: DNA HYBRIDIZATION
Specification:Specification:
The specification discloses a novel cDNA (SEQ ID NO: 1) which encodes a protein that
binds to a newly-discovered growth factor (NDG) receptor and stimulates tyrosine kinase ac-
tivity. The specification includes an example demonstrating that the protein encoded by
SEQ ID NO: 1 binds to the NDG receptor and stimulates tyrosine kinase activity. SEQ ID NO: 1
was not placed into a public depository. The specification expressly defines highly stringent
hybridization conditions as: at least about 6X SSC and 1% SDS at 65ºC, with a first wash for
10 minutes at about 42ºC with about 20% (v/v) formamide in 0.1X SSC, and with a subsequent
wash with 0.2 X SSC and 0.1% SDS at 65ºC. It is known in the art that hybridization techniques
using a known nucleic acid as a probe under highly stringent conditions, such as those set forth
in the specification, will identify structurally similar nucleic acids.
Claims:
Claim 1. An isolated nucleic acid that encodes a protein that binds to the NDG receptor
and stimulates tyrosine kinase activity.
Claim 2. An isolated nucleic acid that encodes a protein that binds to the NDG receptor
and stimulates tyrosine kinase activity, and consists of the sequence set forth in
SEQ ID NO: 1.
Claim 3. An isolated nucleic acid that encodes a protein that binds to the NDG receptor
and stimulates tyrosine kinase activity, wherein the nucleic acid hybridizes under highly
stringent conditions to the complement of the sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO: 1.
Analysis:Analysis:
Claim 2
Claim 2 encompasses a single nucleic acid that has the sequence set forth in
SEQ ID NO: 1, and encodes a protein that binds to the NDG receptor and stimulates tyrosine ki-
nase activity.
The specification discloses an actual reduction to practice of the claimed nucleic acid,
as well as the complete chemical structure of the claimed nucleic acid (i.e., SEQ ID NO: 1)
and method of making the claimed nucleic acid. The specification fails to disclose any art-
recognized correlation between the disclosed function of the claimed nucleic acid (i.e., that
it encodes a protein that binds to the NDG receptor and stimulates tyrosine kinase activity)
and structure. Further, the specification does not indicate that the claimed nucleic acid (i.e.,

25.
22
EXAMPLE 6: DNA HYBRIDIZATION
SEQ ID NO: 1) has been placed into a public depository. However, based on the breadth of the
disclosure and narrowness of the claim, those of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the
applicant to be in possession of the claimed nucleic acid.
Conclusion:
The specification satisfies the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112,
first paragraph, with respect to the full scope of claim 2.
Claim 3
Claim 3 encompasses a genus of isolated nucleic acids that (1) hybridize under highly
stringent conditions to a nucleic acid having a sequence that is complementary to that set forth
in SEQ ID NO: 1, and (2) encode a protein that binds to the NDG receptor and stimulates tyro-
sine kinase activity.
The specification discloses an actual reduction to practice and the complete chemical
structure of only one species of the claimed genus of nucleic acids (i.e., SEQ ID NO: 1). The
specification does not indicate that any nucleic acids that both hybridize to the complement of
SEQ ID NO: 1 and encode a protein that binds to the NDG receptor under highly stringent condi-
tions have been placed into a public depository.
Because hybridization under highly stringent conditions requires a high degree of struc-
tural complementarity, nucleic acids that hybridize to the complement of SEQ ID NO: 1 must
share many nucleotides in common with SEQ ID NO: 1. Thus, the claimed genus necessarily
includes partial structures of SEQ ID NO: 1. The disclosure of SEQ ID NO: 1 combined with
the knowledge in the art regarding hybridization would put one in possession of the genus of
nucleic acids that would hybridize under stringent conditions to SEQ ID NO: 1. However, with-
out a recognized correlation between structure and function, those of ordinary skill in the art
would not be able to identify without further testing which of those nucleic acids that hybridize
to SEQ ID NO: 1 would also encode a polypeptide that binds to NDG receptor and stimulates ty-
rosine kinase activity. Thus, those of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the applicant
to have been in possession of the claimed genus of nucleic acids based on the single species
disclosed.
Conclusion:
The specification fails to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C.
112, first paragraph, with respect to the full scope of claim 3.
Claim 1
Claim 1 encompasses the broad genus of all isolated nucleic acids that encode a pro-
tein that binds to the NDG receptor and stimulates tyrosine kinase activity, and is not limited
to those having complementarity to SEQ ID NO: 1, but also includes nucleic acids having little
structural similarity with SEQ ID NO: 1.

26.
23
EXAMPLE 6: DNA HYBRIDIZATION
It is known in the art that many receptor-binding proteins share a common receptor-
binding domain(s). Thus, some of the proteins encoded by the claimed nucleic acids (i.e.,
functional NDG receptor agonist(s)) may share a common or similar NDG receptor-binding
domain(s). Given the degeneracy of the genetic code, many nucleic acids that encode the NDG
receptor-binding domain(s) would be expected to have a common or highly similar coding re-
gion for at least that domain(s). However, the specification fails to disclose any information
about whether such a domain(s) exists or, if it exists, the structure and/or location of the NDG
receptor-binding domain(s) in the protein encoded by SEQ ID NO: 1, or that of the correspond-
ing nucleic acid sequence. Importantly, the claimed nucleic acids are not limited to such a
domain(s).
Further, it is known within the art that receptor agonists can vary substantially outside
of their receptor-binding domains. Importantly, the claims are not limited to nucleic acids en-
coding receptor agonists having such a binding domain, but may include nucleic acids encoding
agonists with non-canonical binding domains. Given the high degree of variability that may be
found in receptor agonists, and that the number of species required to form a representative
number varies proportionally with the degree of variability within the claimed genus, those of
ordinary skill in the art would not consider the applicant to have been in possession of the en-
tire breadth of the claimed genus of nucleic acids based on the single species disclosed.
Conclusion:
The specification fails to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C.
112, first paragraph, with respect to the full scope of claim 1.

28.
25
EXAMPLE 7: ALLELIC VARIANTS
EXAMPLE 7: ALLELIC VARIANTS
Specification:Specification:
The specification discloses a DNA, SEQ ID NO: 1, said to encode a cell surface receptor
for adenovirus. The cell surface receptor is designated protein X and its sequence is given as
SEQ ID NO: 2. No allelic sequence information is disclosed, but the specification states that
allelic variants of SEQ ID NO: 1 can be obtained, e.g., by hybridizing SEQ ID NO: 1 to a DNA li-
brary made from the same species that yielded SEQ ID NO: 1
Claims:
Claim 1. An isolated DNA that encodes protein X having the amino acid sequence
SEQ ID NO: 2.
Claim 2. An isolated allele of the DNA according to claim 1, which allele encodes
protein X having the amino acid SEQ ID NO: 2.
Claim 3. An isolated allele of SEQ ID NO: 1.
Analysis:Analysis:
Claim 1
Claim 1 is drawn to the genus of DNAs that encode the amino acid sequence
SEQ ID NO: 2, i.e., all sequences degenerately related by the genetic code to SEQ ID NO: 1.
The specification describes the complete structure of only one species in the claimed
genus. The specification does not describe other members of the genus by complete or partial
structure, or physical and/or chemical characteristics.
Those skilled in the art are aware of a known correlation between nucleic acid structure
and coding function. According to the genetic code, each amino acid in a protein can be encod-
ed by one of a small number of possible triplet codons in a nucleic acid. That is, those skilled
in the art are aware that only a limited number of codons can encode a specific amino acid,
and that the genetic code provides a known correlation between the codon function (encoding
a specific amino acid) and each codon structure. Thus, one skilled in the art would be able to
readily envision all the DNAs capable of encoding SEQ ID NO: 2. One of skill in the art would
conclude that the applicant would have been in possession of the genus based on the specifi-
cation and the general knowledge in the art concerning the genetic code table. The facts are
sufficient to support an overall finding that the disclosure, coupled with knowledge in the art
about the genetic code, provides an adequate written description of the claimed genus of DNAs
encoding a protein having SEQ ID NO: 2.

29.
26
EXAMPLE 7: ALLELIC VARIANTS
Conclusion:
The specification satisfies the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112,
first paragraph, with respect to the full scope of claim 1.
Claim 2
Claim 2 is drawn to a genus of allelic DNAs that encode amino acid sequence
SEQ ID NO: 2.
The specification does not provide any particular definition for the term “allele.” In this
circumstance, the meaning of the term is the ordinary usage in the art. The ordinary meaning
of the term “allele” is one of two or more alternate forms
of a gene occupying the same locus in a particular chro-
mosome or linkage structure and differing from other
alleles of the locus at one or more mutational sites. See,
e.g., R. Rieger et al., GLOSSARY OF GENETICS, 5th Ed.
(Springer-Verlag, Berlin 1991), p. 16.
The alleles in claim 2 are “strictly neutral” be-
cause they encode identical proteins, and make no differ-
ence to phenotype. See Rieger et al., p. 17.
In view of the ordinary meaning for “allele,” claim
2 is drawn to native DNAs that encode Protein X. Claim 2, thus, represents a subgenus of the
DNAs claimed in claim 1.
The specification discloses the complete structure of only one species within the scope
of the claimed genus: SEQ ID NO: 1. The specification does not describe other members of the
genus by structure, or physical and/or chemical characteristics. Common structural attributes
of the species in the genus are not described. All members of the genus have the same func-
tion, i.e., they all encode Protein X, but no correlation between naturally occurring allelic struc-
tures and their common coding function is disclosed. The question is whether one of skill in
the art would be able to distinguish members of the subgenus (native DNAs) from other mem-
bers of the genus encoding a protein having SEQ ID NO: 2.
The specification proposes to discover other species in the genus by using a hybridiza-
tion procedure. The proposal to search by hybridization is not a practical way to describe the
full extent of the claimed subgenus because finding a naturally-occurring allele could be suc-
cessful only empirically. There is no description of the mutational sites that exist in nature, and
there is no description of how the structure of SEQ ID NO: 1 relates to the structure of any other
strictly neutral alleles. The general knowledge in the art concerning alleles does not provide
any indication of how the structure of one allele is representative of unknown alleles.
PRACTICE NOTE
Because the Office has the burden of
supporting its position, see MPEP
2163.04, a reference should be relied
on as authority for the Office’s inter-
pretation of the claim term “allele.”

30.
27
EXAMPLE 7: ALLELIC VARIANTS
The nature of alleles is that they are variant structures, and in the present state of the
art, the structure of one allele does not provide guidance to the existence or structure of other
alleles. In other words, the existence and structure of other alleles are not predictable from
the one species of allele described. The description given is not adequate to allow one of skill
in the art to distinguish members of the claimed subgenus from other members of the genus
of claim 1. One of skill in the art would conclude that applicant was not in possession of the
claimed genus because a description of only one member of this genus is not representative of
the species in the genus and is insufficient to support the claim.
Conclusion:
The specification fails to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C.
112, first paragraph, with respect to the full scope of claim 2.
Claim 3
Claim 3 is drawn to the genus including all DNA alleles of SEQ ID NO: 1. The specifica-
tion does not provide any particular definition for the term “allele.” See the discussion above
referring to Rieger et al. Rieger discloses that there are at least seven different kinds of allele
in addition to the “strictly neutral” type discussed above for Claim 2. See Rieger et al., pp. 16-
17 (amorphs, hypomorphs, hypermorphs, antimorphs, neomorphs, isoalleles, and unstable al-
leles). The alleles are distinguished by the effect their different structures have on phenotype.
According to Rieger, alleles may differ functionally according to their distinct structures. For
example, they may differ in the amount of biological activity the protein product may have, may
differ in the amount of protein produced, and may even differ in the kind of activity the protein
product will have.
The specification discloses only one allele within the scope of the genus: SEQ ID NO: 1.
The specification describes the complete structure of only one species in the claimed genus.
The specification does not describe other species in the genus by structure, or physical and/or
chemical characteristics. The functions of the other species in the genus are not disclosed, and
there is no known or disclosed correlation between the unknown structures and the unknown
functions (i.e., phenotypes), or between the unknown structures and the structure of the single
species disclosed.
The specification proposes to discover other members of the genus by using a hybrid-
ization procedure. There is no description of the mutational sites that exist in nature, and
there is no description of how the structure of SEQ ID NO: 1 relates to the structure of different
alleles. The general knowledge in the art concerning alleles does not provide any indication of
how the structure of one allele is representative of other unknown alleles having concordant or
discordant functions. The common attributes of the genus are not described and the identify-
ing attributes of individual alleles, other than SEQ ID NO: 1, are not described. The nature of al-

31.
28
EXAMPLE 7: ALLELIC VARIANTS
leles is that they are variant structures where the structure and function of one does not provide
guidance to the structure and function of others. In other words, the existence of other alleles
is unpredictable and the structure of other alleles, if they exist, is also unpredictable. In addi-
tion, according to the standard definition, the genus might include members that have widely
divergent functional properties. One of skill in the art would conclude that the applicant was
not in possession of the claimed genus because a description of only one member of this genus
is not representative of the variants of the genus and is insufficient to support the claim.
Conclusion:
The specification fails to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C.
112, first paragraph, with respect to the full scope of claim 3.

32.
29
EXAMPLE 8: BIOINFORMATICS
EXAMPLE 8: BIOINFORMATICS
Specification:Specification:
The specification discloses a process for identifying and selecting biological compounds
that are present in a biological system in a tissue specific manner. In the disclosed process, the
expression level of a set of compounds (selected from DNA, RNA, proteins, and metabolites) is
quantitatively determined in multiple tissues within an organism. The expression level data are
then graphically displayed in such a manner that compounds that are differentially expressed
are easily identified. One skilled in the art could select compounds that are expressed at a high
level in one tissue and at a different level in a second tissue based on the displayed informa-
tion. The specification does not provide any particular examples, but discloses that the expres-
sion levels can be determined by any analytical method consistent with the class of compounds
being detected. This type of measurement requires actual physical steps.
Claim:
Claim 1. A computer-implemented method of selecting tissue specific compounds, said
method comprising the steps of:
(a) analyzing the expression level of at least two compounds in a first and second
tissue sample and obtaining expression level data for each of said compounds;
(b) inputting the expression level data obtained in step a) into a computer;
(c) displaying a first axis corresponding to the expression level of each of said
compounds in said first tissue;
(d) displaying a second axis substantially perpendicular to said first axis, said
second axis corresponding to the expression level data of each of said compounds
in said second sample;
(e) displaying a mark at a position, wherein said position is selected relative to
said first axis in accordance with an expression level of said compound in said first
sample and relative to said second axis in accordance with the expression of said
compound in said second sample; and
(f) selecting a compound of interest based on the position of the mark.
Analysis:Analysis:
Claim 1
Claim 1 is drawn to a method of identifying compounds that are differentially expressed
across tissue types. The claim does not limit the compounds that may be used in the method.
The specification does not describe the complete structure, partial structures, physical
properties, or chemical properties of any compound that is differentially expressed. However,

33.
30
EXAMPLE 8: BIOINFORMATICS
knowledge of the structures and properties of a com-
pound that may be differentially expressed is not needed
to practice the claimed method. The claimed invention
is drawn to a generic method for selecting compounds
identified in a screening process, not the compounds
screened.
Practicing the steps of the claimed method re-
quires obtaining, inputting, and displaying the expres-
sion level of compounds in different tissues. The specifi-
cation does not provide an actual reduction to practice of
any species, or identify any specific method of obtaining
expression level data, any specific algorithm for process-
ing the data, or any data display device. The level of
skill and knowledge in the art is such that those skilled
in the art know (1) how to analyze expression levels, (2)
that numerous compounds are differentially expressed,
(3) how to program a computer to accept and display
comparative data, and (4) how to obtain suitable display
devices.
In this fact situation, the art is sufficiently developed so as to put one of skill in the art
in possession of the complete steps of the process.
Based on these factors, those of ordinary skill in the art of differential expression of
compounds would recognize the inventor to have been in possession of the claimed method at
the time of filing.
Conclusion:
The specification satisfies the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112,
first paragraph, with respect to claim 1.
See In re Hayes Microcomputer
Products Inc. Patent Litigation,
982 F.2d. 1527, 1534-35, 25
USPQ2d 1241, 1246 (Fed. Cir.
1992), where the court stated:
One skilled in the art would know
how to program a microprocessor to
perform the necessary steps described
in the specification. Thus, an inven-
tor is not required to describe every
detail of his invention. An applicant’s
disclosure obligation varies according
to the art to which the invention per-
tains.
CASE NOTE

34.
31
EXAMPLE 9: PROTEIN VARIANTS
EXAMPLE 9: PROTEIN VARIANTS
Specification:Specification:
The specification describes a protein isolated from liver. A working example shows that
the isolated protein was sequenced and determined to have the amino acid sequence shown in
SEQ ID NO: 3. The isolated protein was additionally characterized as being 65 kD in molecular
weight and having tumor necrosis activity. The specification states that the invention provides
variants of SEQ ID NO: 3 having one or more amino acid substitutions, deletions, insertions
and/or additions. No further description of the variants is provided. The specification indicates
that procedures for making proteins with amino acid substitutions, deletions, insertions and/or
additions are routine in the art. The specification does not define when a protein ceases to be a
variant of SEQ ID NO: 3.
Claims:
Claim 1. An isolated protein comprising the amino acid sequence shown in
SEQ ID NO: 3.
Claim 2. An isolated variant of the protein of claim 1.
Analysis:Analysis:
Claim 1
Claim 1 is directed to a protein comprising the sequence shown in SEQ ID NO: 3 and the
specification describes the complete structure (sequence) of SEQ ID NO: 3. The claimed genus
is defined by the presence of this structure. Therefore, one skilled in the art would recognize
that the applicant was in possession of a structural feature shared by all members of the ge-
nus. The specification does not describe other members of the genus by complete structure.
However, given the existing knowledge in the art concerning fusion proteins, which are an ex-
ample of additions that could be made to SEQ ID NO: 3, those of skill in the art would conclude
that the applicant would have been in possession of the claimed genus at the time of filing.
Conclusion:
The specification satisfies the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112,
first paragraph, with respect to the full scope of claim 1.
Claim 2
Claim 2 is a genus claim. According to the specification, the term “variant” means a pro-
tein having one or more amino acid substitutions, deletions, insertions and/or additions made
to SEQ ID NO: 3. The specification and claim do not place any limit on the number of amino
acid substitutions, deletions, insertions and/or additions that may be made to SEQ ID NO: 3.

35.
32
EXAMPLE 9: PROTEIN VARIANTS
Thus, the scope of the claim includes numerous structural variants, and the genus is highly vari-
ant because a significant number of structural differences between genus members is permit-
ted.
The specification does not describe any members of the claimed genus by complete
structure. However, the pre-existing general knowledge in the art supplements the descrip-
tion: additions to the end of known or disclosed proteins resulting in fusion proteins have
been described and are generally known. However, the specification does not describe the
structure for substitution variants, deletion variants or insertion variants of SEQ ID NO: 3. The
specification does not describe the physical or chemical characteristics for substitution variants,
deletion variants or insertion variants of SEQ ID NO: 3. The specification does not disclose any
correlation(s) between the structure of the variants and SEQ ID NO: 3, or any correlation(s) of
structure with variant function.
Although the specification states that these types of amino acid changes are routinely
made in the art, the specification and claim do not describe any specific changes to be made.
No common structural attributes identify the members of the substitution, deletion and inser-
tion variant genus. Because the disclosure fails to describe the common attributes or charac-
teristics that identify substitution, deletion and insertion variant members of the genus, and be-
cause the genus is highly variant, SEQ ID NO: 3 is insufficient to describe the genus, even when
considered in light of the general knowledge in the art concerning fusion proteins. One of skill
in the art would reasonably conclude that the disclosure fails to provide a representative num-
ber of species to describe the genus, and thus, that the applicant was not in possession of the
claimed genus. The claimed subject matter is not supported by an adequate written description
because a representative number of species has not been described. A rejection under the writ-
ten description requirement, relying on the analysis set out above, should be entered against
the claim to the extent it covers substitution, deletion and insertion variants.
Conclusion:
The specification fails to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C.
112, first paragraph, with respect to the full scope of claim 2.

36.
33
EXAMPLE 10: PRODUCT CLAIMED BY ITS FUNCTION
EXAMPLE 10: PRODUCT CLAIMED BY ITS FUNCTION
Specification:Specification:
The specification discloses a protein isolated from mouse liver that catalyzes the reac-
tion A->B. The isolated protein was sequenced and its sequence was set forth in the specifica-
tion as SEQ ID NO: 3. The specification also contemplates, but does not exemplify variants of
the protein wherein the variant can have any or all of the following: substitutions, deletions,
insertions and additions. The specification indicates that procedures for making proteins with
substitutions, deletions, insertions and additions are routine in the art and provides an assay
for detecting the catalytic activity of the protein or its variants.
Claims:
Claim 1. An isolated protein comprising the amino acid sequence shown in
SEQ ID NO: 3.
Claim 2. An isolated variant of a protein comprising the amino acid sequence shown in
SEQ ID NO: 3, wherein the variant comprises an amino acid sequence that is at least 95%
identical to SEQ ID NO: 3.
Claim 3. The isolated variant of claim 2, wherein the variant catalyzes the reaction A->B.
Analysis:Analysis:
Claim 1
Claim 1 is directed to a protein comprising the sequence shown in SEQ ID NO: 3.
Because it uses open claim language (“comprising”), the claim is generic; i.e., it encompasses
proteins that include the sequence of SEQ ID NO: 3 together with other amino acids added to
either end of that sequence.
The specification provides an actual reduction to practice of a protein comprising
SEQ ID NO: 3 and describes the complete structure (sequence) of SEQ ID NO: 3. The specifica-
tion describes a method of making a protein comprising SEQ ID NO: 3. The specification de-
scribes the function of the described protein (catalyzing the reaction of A->B), although no cor-
relation between this function and the protein’s structure is disclosed (e.g., by identifying which
amino acids are involved in the active site, substrate binding, etc.). Those skilled in the art
would expect that most species within the genus would retain the function of the protein con-
sisting of SEQ ID NO: 3 because each species must include SEQ ID NO: 3 as part of its structure.
Thus, predictability of species within the genus is high.

37.
34
EXAMPLE 10: PRODUCT CLAIMED BY ITS FUNCTION
The claimed genus of proteins is defined by the presence of the structure represented
by SEQ ID NO: 3. Therefore, one skilled in the art would recognize that the applicant was in
possession of a structural feature shared by each of the members of the claimed genus at the
time of filing. The species shown in the specification’s SEQ ID NO: 3 is, therefore, representa-
tive of the species within the claimed genus.
Conclusion:
The specification satisfies the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112,
first paragraph, with respect to claim 1.
Claim 2
Claim 2 is directed to a variant of the protein defined by claim 1 (a protein compris-
ing SEQ ID NO: 3), where the amino acid sequence of the variant is at least 95% identical to
SEQ ID NO: 3. The claim is not limited to variants of the protein of SEQ ID NO: 3 having the
function of catalyzing the reaction A->B.
The specification adequately describes proteins comprising the amino acid sequence
of SEQ ID NO: 3 (see the analysis of claim 1). All of the
proteins within the scope of claim 2 share at least 95% of
the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 3; therefore, the
specification describes 95% of the structure that defines
the proteins within the claimed genus. All of the spe-
cies within the genus share a significant degree of partial
structure (i.e., at least 95% of SEQ ID NO: 3).
The claimed variants can have amino acid substi-
tutions, deletions, insertions, or additions, as compared
to SEQ ID NO: 3. The specification does not provide an
actual reduction to practice of any variants of the protein
of SEQ ID NO: 3. The specification does not describe the
complete structure or physical or chemical properties of any variants of SEQ ID NO: 3, although
those skilled in the art would expect members of the genus to have properties similar to those
of SEQ ID NO: 3, because of the high degree of structural similarity.
In view of the disclosure of SEQ ID NO: 3, those skilled in the art could readily envision
all of the amino acid sequences that are 95% identical to SEQ ID NO: 3. Those skilled in the art
could recognize amino acid sequences that are 95% identical to SEQ ID NO: 3 by comparing a
given sequence to SEQ ID NO: 3. The presence of an amino acid sequence that is at least 95%
identical to SEQ ID NO: 3 is a structural feature of each of the proteins within the claimed ge-
nus.
This example deals only with the writ-
ten description analysis of the claimed
product. Enablement issues that may
be raised by the recited facts are not
addressed here but should be consid-
ered during examination. A separate
rejection for nonenablement should be
made when appropriate.
PRACTICE NOTE

38.
35
EXAMPLE 10: PRODUCT CLAIMED BY ITS FUNCTION
The level of skill and knowledge in the art is such that one of ordinary skill would be
able to make and identify variants having 95% identity to SEQ ID NO: 3 routinely.
Thus, those skilled in the art would have recognized the disclosure as showing that the
applicant was in possession of the claimed genus of protein variants at the time of filing.
Conclusion:
The specification satisfies the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112,
first paragraph, with respect to claim 2.
Claim 3
Claim 3 is directed to the genus of variants of SEQ ID NO: 3 that comprise an amino acid
sequence at least 95% identical to SEQ ID NO: 3 and catalyze the reaction A->B.
The specification discloses the reduction to practice of one species within the claimed
genus; specifically, the protein having the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 3. There are no
drawings or structural formulas disclosed of any other proteins that catalyze the reaction A->B.
The recitation of a polypeptide with at least 95% amino acid sequence identity to
SEQ ID NO: 3 represents a partial structure. That is, the claimed proteins share at least 95% of
the structure of SEQ ID NO: 3, while 5% of the structure can vary. There is no teaching in the
specification regarding which 5% of the structure can be varied while retaining the ability of the
protein to catalyze the reaction A->B. Further, there is no art-recognized correlation between
any structure (other than SEQ ID NO: 3) and the activity of catalyzing A->B, based on which
those of ordinary skill in the art could predict which amino acids can vary from SEQ ID NO: 3
without losing the catalytic activity. Consequently, there is no information about which amino
acids can vary from SEQ ID NO: 3 in the claimed genus of proteins and still retain the catalytic
activity.
Although the disclosure of SEQ ID NO: 3 combined with the knowledge in the art, would
put one in possession of proteins that are at least 95% identical to SEQ ID NO: 3, the level of
skill and knowledge in the art is such that one of ordinary skill would not be able to identify
without further testing which of those proteins having at least 95% identity to SEQ ID NO: 3
(if any) have the activity of catalyzing the reaction A->B. Based on the lack of knowledge and
predictability in the art, those of ordinary skill in the art would not conclude that the applicant
was in possession of the claimed genus of proteins based on disclosure of the single species of
SEQ ID NO: 3.
Conclusion:
The specification fails to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C.
112, first paragraph, with respect to claim 3.

40.
37
EXAMPLE 11: PERCENT IDENTITY
EXAMPLE 11: PERCENT IDENTITY
11A: ART-RECOGNIZED STRUCTURE-FUNCTION CORRELATION NOT PRESENT
Specification:Specification:
The specification discloses a polynucleotide having the nucleic acid sequence of
SEQ ID NO: 1, which encodes the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 2. The polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 2
has the novel activity X, and does not share significant sequence identity with any known poly-
peptide or polypeptide family. The specification does not disclose any nucleic acid sequences
that encode a polypeptide with novel activity X other than SEQ ID NO: 1.
Claims:
Claim 1. An isolated nucleic acid that encodes a polypeptide with at least 85% amino
acid sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 2.
Claim 2: An isolated nucleic acid that encodes a polypeptide with at least 85% amino
acid sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 2; wherein the polypeptide has activity X.
Analysis:Analysis:
Claim 1
Claim 1 encompasses nucleic acids that encode the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 2, as well
as those that encode any polypeptide having 85% structural identity to SEQ ID NO: 2. However,
the specification discloses only a single species that encodes SEQ ID NO: 2; i.e., SEQ ID NO: 1.
There are no other drawings or structural formulas disclosed that encode either SEQ ID NO: 2 or
a sequence with 85% identity to SEQ ID NO: 2.
The recitation of a polypeptide with at least 85% identity represents a partial struc-
ture, that is, at least 85% percent of the amino acids in the polypeptide will match those
in SEQ ID NO: 2, and up to 15% of them may vary from those in SEQ ID NO: 2. However,
there is no teaching regarding which 15% of the amino acids may vary from SEQ ID NO:
2. Consequently, there is also no information given about which nucleotides will vary from
SEQ ID NO: 1 in the claimed genus of nucleic acids.
There is no functional limitation on the nucleic acids of claim 1 other than that they
encode the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 2 or any polypeptide having 85% structural identity to
SEQ ID NO: 2. The genetic code and its redundancies were known in the art before the applica-
tion was filed.
The disclosure of SEQ ID NO: 2 combined with the pre-existing knowledge in the art
regarding the genetic code and its redundancies would have put one in possession of the ge-

41.
38
EXAMPLE 11: PERCENT IDENTITY
nus of nucleic acids that encode SEQ ID NO: 2. With the aid of a computer, one of skill in the
art could have identified all of the nucleic acids that encode a polypeptide with at least 85%
sequence identity with SEQ ID NO: 2. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that
the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus at the time the application was filed.
Conclusion:
The specification satisfies the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112,
first paragraph, with respect to the scope of claim 1.
Claim 2
Claim 2 encompasses nucleic acids that encode the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 2, and
nucleic acids that encode a polypeptide having 85% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 2 and have
activity X. The specification discloses the reduction to practice of only a single species that en-
codes SEQ ID NO: 2 and has activity X; i.e., SEQ ID NO: 1. There are no other drawings or struc-
tural formulas disclosed of a nucleic acid that encodes either SEQ ID NO: 2 or a polypeptide hav-
ing 85% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 2 and activity X.
The claim includes a genus that can be analyzed at several levels sequentially for the
purpose of focusing the issue.
First, the disclosure of SEQ ID NO: 2 combined with pre-existing knowledge in the art
regarding the genetic code and its redundancies would have put one in possession of the ge-
nus of nucleic acids that encode SEQ ID NO: 2. With the aid of a computer, one of skill in the
art could identify all of the nucleic acid sequences that encode a polypeptide with at least 85%
sequence identity with SEQ ID NO: 2. However, there is no teaching regarding which 15% of
the amino acids can vary from SEQ ID NO: 2 and still result in a protein that retains activity X.
Further, there is no disclosed or art-recognized correlation between any structure other than
SEQ ID NO: 2 and novel activity X.
An important consideration is that structure is not necessarily a reliable indicator of
function. In this example, there is no disclosure relating similarity of structure to conservation
of function. General knowledge in the art included the knowledge that some amino acid varia-
For information on amino acid substitution exchange groups and empirical similarities between amino acid
residues, see a standard text such as Schulz et al., PRINCIPLES OF PROTEIN STRUCTURE, pp. 14-16,
Springer-Verlag (New York 1979). There is a limit to how much substitution can be tolerated before the
original tertiary structure is lost. Generally, tertiary structure conservation would be lost when the amino
acid sequence varies by more than 50%. See, e.g., Cyrus Chothia and Arthur M. Lesk, “The relation between
the divergence of sequence and structure in proteins,” 5 THE EMBO JOURNAL 823-26 (1986).
TECHNICAL NOTE

42.
39
EXAMPLE 11: PERCENT IDENTITY
tions are tolerated without losing a protein’s tertiary structure. The results of amino acid sub-
stitutions have been studied so extensively that amino acids are grouped in so-called “exchange
groups” of similar properties because substituting within the exchange group is expected to
conserve the overall structure. For example, the expectation from replacing leucine with iso-
leucine would be that the protein would likely retain its tertiary structure. On the other hand,
when non-exchange group members are substituted, e.g., proline for tryptophan, the expecta-
tion would be that the substitution would not likely conserve the protein’s tertiary structure.
Given what is known in the art about the likely outcome of substitutions on structure, those in
the art would have likely expected the applicant to have been in possession of a genus of pro-
teins having a tertiary structure similar to SEQ ID NO: 2 although the claim is not so limited.
However, conservation of structure is not necessarily a surrogate for conservation of
function. In this case, there is no disclosed correlation between structure and function. The
need for correlating information can vary. More specifically, those of skill in the art might re-
quire more or less correlating information depending on the kind of protein activity. If activity
X is simply structural, e.g., a member of the collagen class, correlating information might not
be a critical factor. However, if activity X is enzymatic, and there is no disclosure of the active
site amino acid residues responsible for the catalytic activity, lack of that kind of correlating in-
formation may be a problem. Similarly, if activity X is as a ligand, and there is no disclosure of
the domain(s) responsible for the ligand activity, the absence of information may be persuasive
that those of skill in the art would not take the disclosure as generic.
Summarizing, there are no known or disclosed proteins having activity X other than
SEQ ID NO: 2. As of the filing date, there was no known or disclosed correlation between a
structure other than SEQ ID NO: 2 and activity X. While general knowledge in the art may have
allowed one of skill in the art to identify other proteins expected to have the same or similar
tertiary structure, in this example there is no general knowledge in the art about activity X to
suggest that general similarity of structure confers the activity. Accordingly, one of skill in the
art would not accept the disclosure of SEQ ID NO: 2 as representative of other proteins having
activity X.
Conclusion:
The specification, taken with the pre-existing knowledge in the art of amino acid
substitution and the genetic code, fails to satisfy the written description requirement
of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, with respect to the scope of claim 2.
11B: ART-RECOGNIZED STRUCTURE-FUNCTION CORRELATION PRESENT
Specification:Specification:
The specification discloses a polynucleotide having the nucleic acid sequence of
SEQ ID NO: 1, which encodes the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 2. The polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 2

43.
40
EXAMPLE 11: PERCENT IDENTITY
has a novel activity Y, and does not share significant sequence identity with any known polypep-
tide or polypeptide family. The specification does not disclose any nucleic acid sequences that
encode a polypeptide with novel activity Y other than SEQ ID NO: 1. However, the specification
discloses data from deletion studies that identify two domains as critical to activity Y, i.e., a
binding domain and a catalytic domain. The specification proposes that conservative mutations
in these domains (e.g., one basic amino acid substituted for another basic amino acid) will still
result in a protein having activity Y, whereas most non-conservative mutations in these domains
will not result in a polypeptide having the recited activity. The specification also proposes that
most mutations, conservative or non-conservative, outside the two domains will not affect activ-
ity Y to any great extent.
Claims:
Claim 1. An isolated nucleic acid that encodes a polypeptide with at least 85%
amino acid sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 2.
Claim 2. An isolated nucleic acid that encodes a polypeptide with at least 85%
amino acid sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 2; wherein the polypeptide has activity
Y.
Analysis:Analysis:
Claim 1
(This analysis proceeds the same as the analysis for claim 1 in Example 11A (Art-
Recognized Structure-Function Correlation Not Present)
Claim 1 encompasses a vast genus of nucleic acids that encode the polypeptide of
SEQ ID NO: 2, as well as those that encode any polypeptide having 85% structural identity to
SEQ ID NO: 2.
The specification, however, discloses the reduction to practice of only a single species
that encodes SEQ ID NO: 2, i.e., SEQ ID NO: 1. There are no other drawings or structural formu-
las disclosed that encode either SEQ ID NO: 2, or a sequence with 85% identity to SEQ ID NO: 2.
Although the recitation of a polypeptide with at least 85% identity represents a partial
structure -- in that 85% percent of the polypeptide is known, while 15% of the structure may
vary -- there is no teaching regarding which 15% of the amino acids will vary from SEQ ID NO: 2.
Consequently, there is also no information about which nucleotides will vary from SEQ ID NO: 1
in the claimed genus of nucleic acids.
There are no functional characteristics disclosed for the nucleic acids of claim 1 other
than they encode the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 2 or any polypeptide having 85% structural
identity to SEQ ID NO: 2. Further, the specification fails to disclose a method of making nucleic
acids encoding polypeptides having 85% identity to SEQ ID NO: 2.

44.
41
EXAMPLE 11: PERCENT IDENTITY
Nonetheless, the disclosure of SEQ ID NO: 2 combined with the knowledge in the art
regarding the genetic code would put one in possession of the genus of nucleic acids that en-
code SEQ ID NO: 2. Further, with the aid of a computer, one could list all of the nucleic acid
sequences that encode a polypeptide with at least 85% sequence identity with SEQ ID NO: 2.
Additionally, the level of skill and knowledge in the art is such that one of ordinary skill would
be able to use conventional sequencing and nucleic acid synthesis techniques to routinely gen-
erate and identify nucleic acids that encode the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO: 2, as well as those
that encode any polypeptide having 85% structural identity to SEQ ID NO: 2. Thus, one of ordi-
nary skill in the art conclude that the applicant would have been in possession of the claimed
genus at the time of filing.
Conclusion:
The specification satisfies the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112,
first paragraph, with respect to the scope of claim 1.
Claim 2
Claim 2 encompasses a genus of nucleic acids that encode the polypeptide of
SEQ ID NO: 2 and those that encode any polypeptide having 85% structural identity to
SEQ ID NO: 2, wherein the polypeptide additionally has activity Y.
The specification, however, discloses the reduction to practice of only a single species
that encodes SEQ ID NO: 2 and has activity Y, i.e., SEQ ID NO: 1. There are no other drawings or
structural formulas disclosed of a nucleic acid that encodes either (i) SEQ ID NO: 2 or (ii) a poly-
peptide with 85% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 2 wherein the polypeptide also has activity Y.
The disclosure of SEQ ID NO: 2 combined with the knowledge in the art regarding
the genetic code would have put one in possession of the genus of nucleic acids that encode
SEQ ID NO: 2. Further, with the aid of a computer, one could list all of the nucleic acid sequenc-
es that encode a polypeptide with at least 85% sequence
identity to SEQ ID NO: 2. However, the specification fails
to teach which of the nucleic acid sequences that encode
a polypeptide with at least 85% sequence identity to
SEQ ID NO: 2 encode a polypeptide having the required
activity Y.
Nonetheless, the specification identifies two do-
mains responsible for activity Y, i.e., a binding domain
and catalytic domain. The specification also predicts
that conservative mutations in these domains will result
in a protein having activity Y. Although all conservative
amino acid substitutions in these domains will not nec-
This example deals only with the writ-
ten description analysis of the claimed
nucleic acids. Enablement issues that
may be raised by the recited facts are
not addressed here, but should be
considered during examination. A
separate rejection for nonenablement
should be made when appropriate.
PRACTICE NOTE

45.
42
EXAMPLE 11: PERCENT IDENTITY
essarily result in a protein having activity Y, those of ordinary skill in the art would expect that
many of these conservative substitutions would result in a protein having the required activity.
Further, amino acid substitutions outside of the two identified functional domains are unlikely
to greatly affect activity Y. Thus, a correlation exists between the function of the claimed pro-
tein and the structure of the disclosed binding and catalytic domains. Consequently, there is in-
formation about which nucleic acids can vary from SEQ ID NO: 1 in the claimed genus of nucleic
acids and still encode a polypeptide having activity Y. Based on the applicant’s disclosure and
the knowledge within the art, those of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the applicant
would have been in possession of the claimed genus of nucleic acids based on the disclosure of
the single species of SEQ ID NO: 1.
Conclusion:
The specification satisfies the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112,
first paragraph, with respect to the scope of claim 2.

46.
43
EXAMPLE 12: ANTISENSE OLIGONUCLEOTIDES
EXAMPLE 12: ANTISENSE OLIGONUCLEOTIDES
Specification:Specification:
The specification discloses a messenger RNA (mRNA) sequence that encodes newly
discovered growth factor (NDG): SEQ ID NO: 1. The specification states that the invention in-
cludes antisense oligonucleotides that inhibit the production of NDG, but does not disclose the
sequences of any antisense oligonucleotides. The specification describes several art-recognized
methods of screening for antisense oligonucleotides, including using computer-based models
of RNA structure, “gene walking” with numerous antisense oligonucleotides, randomized oli-
gonucleotide libraries, and DNA arrays. Gene walking involves obtaining antisense oligonucle-
otides that are complementary to the target sequence, and is disclosed as the preferred method
of screening for antisense oligonucleotides. The specification also discloses the use of modi-
fied nucleotides to avoid degradation by nucleases in biological fluids.
Claim:
Claim 1. An antisense oligonucleotide complementary to all or a portion of a messenger
RNA having SEQ ID NO: 1 and encoding NDG, wherein said antisense oligonucleotide
inhibits the production of NDG.
Analysis:Analysis:
Claim 1
Claim 1 is drawn to a genus of antisense oligonucleotides that are complementary to
all or a portion of NDG mRNA (SEQ ID NO: 1) and that, when bound to NDG mRNA, inhibit NDG
protein production.
The specification does not disclose the actual reduction to practice of any antisense
oligonucleotides falling into the scope of claim 1. However, it is generally accepted in the art
that oligonucleotides that are complementary to an mRNA will have antisense activity if and
when they hybridize to accessible regions on the target mRNA. Generally, the closer in size an
antisense oligonucleotide is to a full length mRNA of interest, the greater the likelihood the oli-
gonucleotide will have antisense activity for that mRNA. Because the general knowledge in the
art is that the binding of any full-length complement of a target mRNA to that target mRNA will
inhibit its expression, the specification discloses the complete structure of one species within
the genus of claim 1, i.e., the full-length complement of SEQ ID NO: 1.
The specification does not disclose the full or partial structures of any other species
within the genus of claim 1. However, the structure of all possible antisense oligonucleotides
that are complementary to NDG mRNA can be predicted from the full-length complement of
SEQ ID NO: 1. Even though all of the oligonucleotides that are complementary to NDG mRNA

47.
44
EXAMPLE 12: ANTISENSE OLIGONUCLEOTIDES
will not have antisense function, there are certain art-recognized correlations between the an-
tisense oligonucleotide’s function and the structure of the target mRNA that would aid the se-
lection of those fragments having antisense activity. For example, oligonucleotides that retain
complementarity to the Shine-Delgarno sequence typically have antisense activity. As previous-
ly mentioned, the closer in size and structure an oligonucleotide is to its target mRNA, the more
antisense activity. In contrast, regions having high G-C content are usually inaccessible and,
therefore, not good candidates for antisense oligonucleotides. Several mRNA computer model-
ing software packages exist that incorporate these structure-function correlations, and can be
used to predict those oligonucleotides having antisense activity. Although these programs do
not operate with 100% accuracy, because SEQ ID NO: 1 defines and limits the structure of any
effective antisense oligonucleotides, and because there are art-recognized correlations between
antisense oligonucleotide’s function and target mRNA structure, those skilled in the art would
conclude that the applicant would have been in possession of several representative species of
the antisense oligonucleotides of claim 1.
Given the high level of skill in the antisense oligonucleotides art, and that the number
of species required to form a representative number varies inversely with the level of skill in the
art, those of ordinary skill in the art would consider the applicant to have been in possession of
the entire breadth of the claimed genus of antisense oligonucleotides based on the single spe-
cies that could be predicted from the disclosure (i.e., the complement of SEQ ID NO: 1).
Conclusion:
The specification satisfies the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112,
first paragraph, with respect to the full scope of claim 1.
The difference between the outcomes in this example and in claim 2 of Example 7 (Allelic Variants) is due to
the subject matter being claimed and knowledge in the art. Claim 2 in Example 7 is directed to the genus of
alleles encoding protein X having SEQ ID NO: 2. Although those of ordinary skill in the art could predict
all of the DNAs encoding protein X having SEQ ID NO: 2, there is no way to know which of those DNAs
would be alleles without testing all of the DNAs in existence. In this example, those of ordinary skill in the
art could predict all of the oligonucleotides that are complementary to NDG mRNA, but would not be able to
predict with 100% accuracy which of those oligonucleotides would have antisense activity. However, those
of ordinary skill in the art have algorithms to aid in predicting which oligonucleotides will have the required
function, and can readily make and test those oligonucleotides for antisense activity.
PRACTICE NOTE

48.
45
EXAMPLE 13: ANTIBODIES TO A SINGLE PROTEIN
EXAMPLE 13: ANTIBODIES TO A SINGLE PROTEIN
Specification:Specification:
The specification discloses that a protein designated antigen X has been isolated from
HIV and is useful for detection of HIV infections. The specification describes purifying antigen
X by gel filtration and discloses its amino acid sequence. Antigen X is further characterized as a
55 kD monomer having no disulfide bonds, with a slightly acidic pI. The specification discusses
antibodies which specifically bind to antigen X and asserts that these antibodies can be used in
immunoassays to detect HIV. However, there is no working or detailed prophetic example of an
antibody that binds to antigen X.
Claim:
Claim 1. An isolated antibody capable of binding to antigen X.
Analysis:Analysis:
The specification does not describe an actual reduction to practice of an antibody that
binds to antigen X by reference to a deposit (e.g., deposit of a hybridoma) or by describing an
antibody in structural terms sufficient to show possession. The specification also does not
describe the complete structure of an antibody capable of binding antigen X in detailed draw-
ings or through a structural chemical formula. The specification does not describe a partial
structure of the claimed antibody. The specification does not describe any physical or chemical
properties of the claimed antibody (e.g., molecular weight, association constant).
As evidence, see, e.g., Elvin A. Kabat, STRUCTURAL CONCEPTS IN IMMUNOLOGY AND
IMMUNOCHEMISTRY, 2nd Ed. (Holt, Rinehart and Winston 1976), p. 17:
Early studies empirically established that proteins were good antigens when injected into a species other than
the one from which they originated. . . . Indeed, it was shown very early in this [20th] century that rabbit
serum proteins injected into even as closely related a species as hare would yield antibody (and vice versa).
No difficulties were encountered in preparing antibodies to protein antigens from remotely related sources
such as bacteria, viruses, and egg, milk, and plant proteins. In most of these studies it sufficed to immunize
the animal (an animal receiving injections of an antigen is being immunized) with a solution of the antigen,
or preferably, with the protein antigen adsorbed on floccules of aluminum hydroxide (alum precipitate), since
the use of antigens in particulate form had been shown to give a better antibody response.
TECHNICAL NOTE

49.
46
EXAMPLE 13: ANTIBODIES TO A SINGLE PROTEIN
The specification does not disclose a correlation
between the function of binding to antigen X and the
structure of the claimed antibody. Finally, the specifica-
tion does not describe a method of making an antibody
that binds antigen X.
However, the level of skill and knowledge in the
art of antibodies at the time of filing was such that pro-
duction of antibodies against a well-characterized anti-
gen was conventional.
Antibodies were known to be of five general types; each of the five types had been char-
acterized as having substantial common structural, chemical and biological features.
The antigen-specific variable regions of antibodies vary.
It does not appear that persons of skill in the art consider knowledge of the amino acid
sequence of the variable regions critical for purposes of assessing possession of an antibody.
Considering the facts, including the routine art-recognized method of making antigen-
specific antibodies, the adequate description of antigen X, the well-defined structural character-
istics for the classes, subclasses and isotypes of antibody, the functional characteristics of anti-
body binding, and the fact that antibody technology was
well developed and mature, one of skill in the art would
have recognized that the disclosure of the adequately
described antigen X put the applicant in possession of
antibodies which bind to antigen X.
Conclusion:
The specification satisfies the written description re-
quirement of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, with respect
to the full scope of claim 1.
For example, Kabat shows the shared
physical, chemical and biological
properties of IgG, IgA, IgM, IgD and
IgE in tabular form at pp. 227-29.
TECHNICAL NOTE
For an example discussion of the
variable and hypervariable region
sequence variation, see Kabat at pp.
286-300.
TECHNICAL NOTE